Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Anchower

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect all to The_Onion#Reporters_and_editors. Editors may wish to Merge information to expand this section of the redirect target. BLACKKITE 14:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Anchower

The article demonstrates no notability based on reliable sourcing, and as such it is just a repetition of the content of various humorous letter written by this character found on The Onion. As such, it is just duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons mentioned above, as well as failing WP:FICTION:

as well as these two:

Delete - The second sentence started the dive of the article. Judge above's reasons are best and I echo them. Recreation, non-notable, etc. Not to mention tone and content. VigilancePrime (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not assert notability. --Charitwo ^talk 17:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and then redirect to The Onion#Reporters and editors. However, if this article can be reworked to show real-world notability for this character, I may reconsider, particularly given that Wikipedia has articles about most of his fellow fictional Onion columnists. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - notable columnists from The Onion, some running for 10 years. --David Shankbone 19:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But do they have any real world notability? (Remember, all these are fictional columnists.)--Fabrictramp (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. And they were notable parts of The Onion. I see no reason to delete fictional characters when people have taken the time to create their subpages. The Onion's page would be too long with these included. There is no harm in keeping them, and they individually have a lot of fans. --David Shankbone 18:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone can scare up some sources to show that real world notability, WP:FICTION says they need to be merged back into the main article or into a single article on all the fictional writers for the paper. I haven't been able to find sources that show real world notability. If you have found such sources (rather than just assuming notability), I'd be thrilled if you would add it to the articles. (And just for the record, I do subscribe to The Onion's RSS feed and enjoy it very much.) --Fabrictramp (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: The related pages (Jean Teasdale, Jackie Harvey, etc.) were nominated more than two days after the original nomination and thus most of the recommendations submitted did not necessarily take them into account. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main Onion article (all of them). - eo (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - trivial media coverage Addhoc (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ericorbit. There is some useful information, but they are not notable by themselves. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.